We are studying how companies
have to report about themselves to get investors
such as the banks to fund them.
The main conclusion we drew
was that being cautious,
more conservative, they had a better chance
of being funded.
Should the profit be equally possible
being between ten and five:
aggressive would be ten and conservative would be five
and neutral would be around the middle.
What we are showing is that those companies
the information is more conservative, closer to the five
to get a profit that will get more funding.
Regulatory boards seem to have in mind
that the ideal thing would be giving neutral information.
With our results we can say no.
The ideal thing to get funding
and economy to get better and generate jobs
is the conservative information.
This is the opposite of the last regulations
from the US and Europe.
We are using information from American companies
we have a big selection that can last for years.
If we made the same study with Spanish data,
with European data,
or practically from any developed economy
the results will be identical, most probably.
We are particularly seeing that the companies
benefiting from that conservative trend
are the ones having trouble for being funded.
The companies will have greater chances
of getting a loan or financiation through bonds.
That one is the main benefit we are showing.
But there are also other works showing the benefits of being conservative.
For instance, making funding less expensive.